What K video can the human eye see?

Michael Piziak · 02-26-2023, 06:38 PM

I've been googling this for the past half hour and curious as to what K resolution video can the human eye see?

I've found that the eye can see something like 576 megapixel still images, but haven't read what K video the eye can see.

I was actually curious as to how high K are t.v. manufacturers going to stop making t.v.'s

Personally, I don't seem to be able to see HD much better than 720 or 1080p it seems (as I have a 4k tv and a 1080 tv)....

Michael

MarkJerling · 02-27-2023, 02:33 AM

I suspect it's highly subjective. For my eyes, 4K (stills) seems to be much nicer to look at than HD, so I suspect the same will hold true for video, although I can't say I've seen 4K video yet.

**JensE** · 02-27-2023, 06:15 AM - **1 Like**

Our ability to process complete scenes in motion is lower than that for static scenes, where we have time to scan and study it.

Originally posted by Michael Piziak

Personally, I don't seem to be able to see HD much better than 720 or 1080p it seems (as I have a 4k tv and a 1080 tv)....

As in your own experience, video is perceived as having good quality usually at much lower resolution than photographs are. But of course, videos may contain fairly static situations, where lower resolution will in turn become apparent.

For static images, there is a nice discussion of resolution on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis#Angular_size_of_foveal_cones, calculated in terms of PPI at various viewing distances. The total can easily be calculated from those numbers based on how much of the field of view you consider (screen size vs. distance). It's an upper bound of what makes sense in terms of video.

normhead · 02-27-2023, 08:03 AM

The advantage to 4k, is further viewing distances as far as I know. Even with the 4k computer monitor I have to put in strong, magnifying glasses an get real close to judge resolution. If I have to do that it's as good as I need. On a 4k TV it gets noticeably soft up close. But from 6-8 feet away where I sit it looks great. I'm guessing an 8k TV would look better up close, but it would be better than 4k, maybe from 3 feet to 5 feet. Not from where I sit. Now do I notice a difference for computer work where I'm sitting 30 inches away? Absolutely. TV isn't like that. I'd never use a computer monitor less than 4 k for editing photos. And my wife's 5k looks quite appealing.

Originally posted by JensE

It's an upper bound of what makes sense in terms of video.

I'm always amazed when my TV stops to buffer on Netflix or wherever, what poor quality the stills often are.

**Rondec** · 02-27-2023, 08:21 AM

I don't think our eyes actually see 576 megapixel images - certainly not a continuous feed of that level -- even though that is what a lot of websites say. I'm guessing that at most we see 30 to 40 megapixels. We have a lot of resolution centrally in what our macula sees and much less resolution peripherally. We are constantly moving our eyes though and scanning and so our brain puts together a composite of what we are looking at.

As far as video goes, I think as resolution goes up to 4K or 6K it mainly allows for more seamless projection on bigger screens. This used to be the reason for special I Max cameras back in the day. When viewed on a smaller screen we probably see it as smoother and more detailed, although how much we can pick up on individual details depends on the scene.

normhead · 02-27-2023, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I don't think our eyes actually see 576 megapixel images

Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP.

Quote:

When viewed on a smaller screen we probably see it as smoother and more detailed, although how much we can pick up on individual details depends on the scene.

As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my best hi-res images have artifacts beyond belief when reduced.

Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks.

When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images.

This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. Then I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off.

**Rondec** · 02-27-2023, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP.

As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my really are images are artifacts beyond belief when reduced.

Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks.

When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images.

This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. The I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off.

Google says the human eye see 576 megapixels. I was saying I don't think most people actually "see" close to that detail.

How Many Megapixels Is the Human Eye? | Latest Science News and Articles | Discovery

normhead · 02-27-2023, 10:21 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

Google says the human eye see 576 megapixels. I was saying I don't think most people actually "see" close to that detail.

How Many Megapixels Is the Human Eye? | Latest Science News and Articles | Discovery

The relevant information being "But in a single snapshot-length glance, the resolution drops to a fraction of that: around 5–15 megapixels."

So in other words, my movie camera can see 576 MP by scanning the scene, with my still camera, I can see 5-15 MP, with the 12 k of a 4k TV being a very good fit for the human eye.

If you really want 576 MP, you're going to have to "pan and stitch" just like your eye does. That's only 12 48 MP iPhone images, a few people here on the forum have panos with more images. I suppose that would enable you to print on a form of wall paper, wrap the image in a circular wall that maintains your viewing distance, and then view your scene as if you were standing in it, and like surround sound and stereo, it would be best from one spot in the middle of the construction.

Boy I'd like to try that with a wave pool to stand in with a shot taken from a beach, and maybe some pine scents and forest sounds for the total effect. That information opens up some great concepts. A museum installation maybe? A special room to spend time in, in the middle of winter, with that lamp/daylight artificial "sun" beating down on me. It would be awesome for 20 minutes I'm sure.

Michael Piziak · 02-27-2023, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP.

As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my really are images are artifacts beyond belief when reduced.

Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks.

When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images.

This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. The I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off.

Your image of the ice crystals looks amazing when one zooms in on it on Flickr !

normhead · 02-28-2023, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Michael Piziak

Your image of the ice crystals looks amazing when one zooms in on it on Flickr !

It's one of those you could stare at for a long time it was on a wall, and it needs to be Hi-Res, because people are going to moving and looking closer. Normal viewing distance doesn't apply for that one.

**StiffLegged** · 03-01-2023, 12:09 AM

I’m still amazed I can watch all sorts of things for hours on end without my head overheating. No mirrorless camera can do that yet, and I don’t even have to change cards!

normhead · 03-01-2023, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by StiffLegged

I’m still amazed I can watch all sorts of things for hours on end without my head overheating. No mirrorless camera can do that yet, and I don’t even have to change cards!

Having just completed archiving my Apple Aperture files and making them relevant to current software, I'd add, and you never have to buy another 5T hard drive to save your memories.

02-26-2023, 06:38 PM	#1
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815	What K video can the human eye see? I've been googling this for the past half hour and curious as to what K resolution video can the human eye see? I've found that the eye can see something like 576 megapixel still images, but haven't read what K video the eye can see. I was actually curious as to how high K are t.v. manufacturers going to stop making t.v.'s Personally, I don't seem to be able to see HD much better than 720 or 1080p it seems (as I have a 4k tv and a 1080 tv).... Michael

02-27-2023, 08:24 AM	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec I don't think our eyes actually see 576 megapixel images Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP. Quote: When viewed on a smaller screen we probably see it as smoother and more detailed, although how much we can pick up on individual details depends on the scene. As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my best hi-res images have artifacts beyond belief when reduced. Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks. When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images. This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. Then I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off. Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2023 at 08:32 AM.

02-27-2023, 10:21 AM - 1 Like	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec Google says the human eye see 576 megapixels. I was saying I don't think most people actually "see" close to that detail. How Many Megapixels Is the Human Eye? \| Latest Science News and Articles \| Discovery The relevant information being "But in a single snapshot-length glance, the resolution drops to a fraction of that: around 5–15 megapixels." So in other words, my movie camera can see 576 MP by scanning the scene, with my still camera, I can see 5-15 MP, with the 12 k of a 4k TV being a very good fit for the human eye. If you really want 576 MP, you're going to have to "pan and stitch" just like your eye does. That's only 12 48 MP iPhone images, a few people here on the forum have panos with more images. I suppose that would enable you to print on a form of wall paper, wrap the image in a circular wall that maintains your viewing distance, and then view your scene as if you were standing in it, and like surround sound and stereo, it would be best from one spot in the middle of the construction. Boy I'd like to try that with a wave pool to stand in with a shot taken from a beach, and maybe some pine scents and forest sounds for the total effect. That information opens up some great concepts. A museum installation maybe? A special room to spend time in, in the middle of winter, with that lamp/daylight artificial "sun" beating down on me. It would be awesome for 20 minutes I'm sure. Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2023 at 11:01 AM.

02-28-2023, 08:00 PM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Michael Piziak Your image of the ice crystals looks amazing when one zooms in on it on Flickr ! It's one of those you could stare at for a long time it was on a wall, and it needs to be Hi-Res, because people are going to moving and looking closer. Normal viewing distance doesn't apply for that one. Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2023 at 08:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Human eye perception of black & white photos	biz-engineer	General Photography	31	05-02-2020 10:47 AM
Camera Lens vs. The Human Eye	AggieDad	General Photography	28	06-13-2019 01:30 PM
Closest to the human eye?	NecroticSoldier	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	03-29-2010 02:22 AM
Anyone know? Human eye: f-stop, ISO, dynamic range?	amateur6	General Talk	45	10-22-2009 11:55 PM
Comparing the Human Eye to the Camera	mithrandir	General Talk	9	01-22-2009 03:37 AM

02-27-2023, 02:33 AM	#2
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	I suspect it's highly subjective. For my eyes, 4K (stills) seems to be much nicer to look at than HD, so I suspect the same will hold true for video, although I can't say I've seen 4K video yet.

02-27-2023, 06:15 AM - 1 Like	#3
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,969	Our ability to process complete scenes in motion is lower than that for static scenes, where we have time to scan and study it. Originally posted by Michael Piziak Personally, I don't seem to be able to see HD much better than 720 or 1080p it seems (as I have a 4k tv and a 1080 tv).... As in your own experience, video is perceived as having good quality usually at much lower resolution than photographs are. But of course, videos may contain fairly static situations, where lower resolution will in turn become apparent. For static images, there is a nice discussion of resolution on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis#Angular_size_of_foveal_cones, calculated in terms of PPI at various viewing distances. The total can easily be calculated from those numbers based on how much of the field of view you consider (screen size vs. distance). It's an upper bound of what makes sense in terms of video.

02-27-2023, 08:03 AM	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The advantage to 4k, is further viewing distances as far as I know. Even with the 4k computer monitor I have to put in strong, magnifying glasses an get real close to judge resolution. If I have to do that it's as good as I need. On a 4k TV it gets noticeably soft up close. But from 6-8 feet away where I sit it looks great. I'm guessing an 8k TV would look better up close, but it would be better than 4k, maybe from 3 feet to 5 feet. Not from where I sit. Now do I notice a difference for computer work where I'm sitting 30 inches away? Absolutely. TV isn't like that. I'd never use a computer monitor less than 4 k for editing photos. And my wife's 5k looks quite appealing. Originally posted by JensE It's an upper bound of what makes sense in terms of video. I'm always amazed when my TV stops to buffer on Netflix or wherever, what poor quality the stills often are.

02-27-2023, 08:21 AM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	I don't think our eyes actually see 576 megapixel images - certainly not a continuous feed of that level -- even though that is what a lot of websites say. I'm guessing that at most we see 30 to 40 megapixels. We have a lot of resolution centrally in what our macula sees and much less resolution peripherally. We are constantly moving our eyes though and scanning and so our brain puts together a composite of what we are looking at. As far as video goes, I think as resolution goes up to 4K or 6K it mainly allows for more seamless projection on bigger screens. This used to be the reason for special I Max cameras back in the day. When viewed on a smaller screen we probably see it as smoother and more detailed, although how much we can pick up on individual details depends on the scene.

02-27-2023, 10:08 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by normhead Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP. As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my really are images are artifacts beyond belief when reduced. Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks. When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images. This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. The I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off. Google says the human eye see 576 megapixels. I was saying I don't think most people actually "see" close to that detail. How Many Megapixels Is the Human Eye? \| Latest Science News and Articles \| Discovery

02-27-2023, 10:32 PM	#9
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead Where would one find a 576 megapixel image? 4k is 12 MP. As you reduce the size of your image you don't maintain the resolution of your image. What you are more likely to see is sharpening artifacts. Some of my really are images are artifacts beyond belief when reduced. Try looking at this one at reduced size.... it's not a pleasant experience. You haven't seen it in all its glory even on Flickr, until you increase the size. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks. When you have 3400 lw/ph (my K-1) on full size image, reducing it 1700 dots in height makes reproducing all the detail impossible. You simply don't have enough lines to show the detail the camera captured. Which is why, unless you print really big, high resolution cameras are a waste of money. Even on my monitor 3840-2160, reduced from 7300 by 4900 there's more detail in the original than can be shown on the monitor if the picture is running near maximum detail for the sensor. If people are wondering why I'm not interested in Cameras that are more res than a K-1, the K-1 is near twice as much as I ever use. After a K-1, I'd just be throwing out a lot more info than I do now, in 99% of my images. This type of image is so rare, it would be easy say "I don't need a 36 MP camera." But bottom line, I'm happy I had it. Even if this is the only one I get that makes full use of its resolution. But I won't see how good it really is, until I get the print back from the printers. The I will be able to see the full resolution at 300 DPI. (16x24). Buying a high res camera is a gamble. It paid off for me once. I'm happy with that. Others might not be. And still others may want a bigger gamble with a even bigger possible pay off. Your image of the ice crystals looks amazing when one zooms in on it on Flickr !

03-01-2023, 12:09 AM	#11
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,616	I’m still amazed I can watch all sorts of things for hours on end without my head overheating. No mirrorless camera can do that yet, and I don’t even have to change cards!

03-01-2023, 08:28 AM	#12
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by StiffLegged I’m still amazed I can watch all sorts of things for hours on end without my head overheating. No mirrorless camera can do that yet, and I don’t even have to change cards! Having just completed archiving my Apple Aperture files and making them relevant to current software, I'd add, and you never have to buy another 5T hard drive to save your memories.